VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server?

Saqib Ali asks: "I m sure most of you have heard that Connectix, the makers of Virtual PC/Server, have been acquired by Microsoft. Based on the technology acquired, MS has developed a new product called Microsoft Virtual Server, using which a Windows Server 2003 based server can run multiple operating systems concurrently. I am doing a preliminary analysis of using MS Virtual Server vs. running VMware ESX Server 2.0 on Clustered Linux Environment. Both solutions offer a way of running multiple OSes in a virtual environment using the same underlying OS (Windows 2003 or Linux). Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor. However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

Comments

Still a Single Vendor

[swdunlop]

Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor.

You will still be locked into a single vendor; the one that supplies VMware, which is not Free Software; while this company doesn't have the reputation of jettisoning products on a marketing department's whim, you still need to worry about what happens if the company in question goes under, or is purchased by an aggressive competitor, like Microsoft.

Re:Still a Single Vendor

[stonebeat.org]

That is very valid argument. I didn't think of that.

However with MS Virtual Server, there are 2 components (2003 and MS Virtual Server) that are locking into a vendor.
On the other hand, in the Linux + VMware GSX solution, there only one component (vmware GSX) that is locking us in a vendor

don't put words in my mouth

[QuantumG]

it's BSD style, not "based on" FreeBSD.